yes, there is and that is what we have some in the would allow that. in this case, the finding is really meant to deal with the difference between code compliance and the basic zoning. this is coming closer to conforming with the zoning. this is not coming any closer into conformity. this is still in conformity but this is not improving the situation. >> i have one other question. i know that this board has considered converting the two units back to one or one back to a key. does the planning commission

ever consider that? i think the department denied this. >> this is an excellent point. in these matters, it is more inappropriate for them to make more appropriate decisions. the sport can exercise authorities find making such a decision.

-- this board can exercise authority. >> good evening. our family are the lives in the original single family residence that was from the 1920's. we believe that our proposed projects needs a majority of the city's criteria for the trolling units.

these are examples of the strong support we have from our neighbors. the prevailing density is predominately single family residences. next door to us are single- family homes. while it has been the knowledge that the properties in our streets are r h two. most of the neighborhood is single-family home. there was no separate entrance on a separate unit. there is no privacy and security for the unit.

the dining room in the unit we occupy is not functional. we have been advised by our architect that these items cannot be created through interior alterations. the tent is young, financially able, and interested and fully supported by our project. this rental unit has been left on occupied for a long line of time has to understand from to the prior ownership according to the realtor, it was empty for a

year immediately prior to the purchase of the property. this is sufficient. we have tried living there and it does not make sense and it does not work. the property is not designed or function two units. we do not intend to read this in the future. thank you.

>> it looks like one is meant to be an exercise room and the other would be redone in the dining room. >> that is correct as i mentioned in another case a couple of years ago, we considered a merger that has been below this as well. we require them to keep their utilities. would this be something that would work for you? >> this would not be our first choice.

>> is to any public comment? >> mr. sanchez, you have rebuttal. >> i want to provide a better answer for the affordability finding. there is an exemption from the discretionary review hearing. this is something that would be more than 80% of the cost on a combined land and structure.

with that, it was not able to meet the finding. >> what about the rental value? >> it would have to be the value on the property. >> we have had in this for you have to walk through a bathing facility and this is an interesting one.

>> you have to walk to the bathroom and get to the kitchen. things like this would clearly be an edition. i think it is difficult for us to make the findings. >> and looks like this door, rather than going into the hallway, it would be to the left. >> this has been very well

defined for ability criteria that they reinvented one here based and not upon income. >> the reason that this was put in here, i was not directly involved in. i believe that these were clearly not affordable. if you are demolishing a single- family dwelling and the value exceeds 1.3 million, you are exempt from the mandatory process. this can exempt you from the process. 80% is a typical figure used in

the affordability of dwelling units. yes, they are different issues when you're basing them on income. how would you apply that in this case? >> if you had $4,000 a month, assuming this is only 1/3 of your income stream and the income stream as $120,000, compared this to your affordability issues. what is 50% of median that you normally use for affordable housing? >> this is ok to use based on the standards we have developed. been you can bring this up to market rates, you can charge whatever you want. this can be an artificial number or not.

>> this house, we know this to be a substitute? >> the recent purchase price was just over 3 million as indicated in the appellants papers. the assessed value of have to be in excess of 1.6 million in order to qualify under the exemption. >> instead of up gaming the system by increasing the rent, they would have to make improvements to the house.

>> in this case, we would revive diminish traders review criteria. >> they wouldn't change that into planning. this would have been called not affordable. this would have affected the whole process? >> had the finding been made that day appraise the this said more than 2.6 million, we would not have made the finding that this was affordable. in section 1 01 0.1, this is a general plan and this is a separate review from section 317. -- in section 101.1.

>> there seems to be a question. we did perch in the house for slightly over $2 million. this would not meet the $2.6 million test. the only thing i want to point out is that this is a matter of timing. this will leave any moment in time. >> do you understand that if you had not granted it at all, you would be in in ease your position now. >> we understand that now.

>> the matter is submitted. >> since the issue was just raised, we don't have an affidavit. i don't know why i was under the impression that this was a female tenant but this is not important. the intent to not live there is there. i don't see how this is not reasonable to apply the criteria particularly given the fact that unless mr. sanchez wanted to dispute this, let's not cause someone to be evicted in order to not allow a dwelling unit merger. this is a point that can be

argued. this really does not apply. we spoke about an overly narrow interpretation. i would consider giving the facts around to the tenant. this would be an overly narrow interpretation. if we decide we can have that, this has to do with the owner occupied, this can be great. the fact that this doesn't have efficiency, i would not to be someone occupying the lower unit given the way that you are

entering the building. if that is not going into the asset column, this does not belong in a liability:. i don't think that there are too many people out there who would consider $4,000 affordable. let's assume that the tenant moves out of here and the banks continue to live there under better circumstances in that they have any two-unit building

which they could legally do. i think a very reasonable compromise has to do with the fact that at some future date we would leave open the possibility that this could be a unit and could be achieved by the appliances. i am in favor of granting this appeal and allowing this to go forward. >> i agree with commissioner garcia. >> i agree.

>> i would move to overrule the department. the overarching policy of protecting affordable rental housing is not certain this particular way. >> do we need to condition this? we will leave this up to commissioner goh. >> yes, i shake -- i think it is importance to uphold the potential for another family. >> --

>> i recommend it dumped in the findings under 317. >> do we have to enumerate or give reasons? >> okay. >> this is not the majority. >> 3 out of five. >> the supermajority to be exempt from the discretionary review process. generally, if the department is recommending approval, three out of five. >> who will do those findings? >> i believe the motion is to overrule the nile, grant the permit on condition that the

second kitchen's utilities be capped and maintained and with findings to come at a later date. >> we are not deciding which commission is meant to be capped. >> corks when not be supporting this denial. >> this should be capped and maintained and updated at a later time. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> the finding is overruled. >> item 10. >> item 10, p.o. number 10-095, carol fleming verses of the building inspection apartment with planning department approval. this is protesting the issuance to alter a building, remove replaced deck with a new deck, constructing new debt mr. k sacha the rear, remove and replace partial cents.

>> i would like to thank my neighbors for being patient. this is a matter of fence height. i am just downhill from the property and this nice young couple has bought this property and move dan and is doing wonderful renovations and the neighborhood rejoices in this as did i have. the issue is the height of the fence. if i can show you the prevailing sense of the neighborhood as it goes down. we hope that you can turn on the overhead. we hope that you can see.

this is a grace note of a backyard. on the uphill, and happen to have these photos that were -- with my family. that is how it looked. when i came home in late july on one friday and much to my astonishment i found the same fence and like a 4 foot extension above my sense -- my fence and i was genuinely shocked because they had made no notification of this. this amounts to a 10 foot fence.

this photo was taken at 1:00 in the afternoon and now my rose garden is going into shade for the whole afternoon. i have lived in this neighborhood for 11 years. it struck me as shocking as they could put up a barrier. it seems to me that this construction had a direct effect on my garden and my enjoyment and my property values. shouldn't i have been notified of this construction? this is a real question on my part because i don't know because i was wishing that i had been and that had an opportunity to have some input. i did invite them over and show

them that this was a really concerning topics to me. since we are on a slope, instead of staying to the ground, they put in a deck and then they put in a fence on top of the deck so that this was raised up. my sense is 6 feet. i now have a 10 foot solid barrier on my afternoon wall. i did explain my concerns to them and i asked them to bring it down to two feet. on mount davidson, the sunshine and air circulation is really important. they told me it was permitted, it had a permit. they cannot afford a change, i told them that i would pay for

it. they refused and they preferred their privacy. i called the department of building inspection and i talked to mr. james lee about what my options are. what can i do with this situation. he said that this was not permitted. this is not a good way to start a neighborhood relationship. apparently he came out and inspected and subsequently they were granted a permit to in the middle of august but that was sometime after they actually had it built. so, i don't know what redress is available to me. this is a 10 foot solid sense that blocks my sunshine and i believe i should have been notified and i believe that my right to sunshine should be

protected. >> would you put up the first picture that you showed, the sense with the latticework? would huge rock a line with your fingers as to where that dec is. >> this is on the downside. i'm not sure where their debt is -- a deck is. they can probably show you better than i. this is somewhere behind my sense. >> i was wondering if this would end up being in the middle of the latticework. >> and then they put a fence on

top of it. >> this is on the deck, you would have a clear view of your neighbors? >> if you wanted to, you could go up to it and see in your neighbor's yard, you could. right here, this is solid. if i took down my sense, which i intend to, i think i would have a big cavity underneath where i could probably have an open space. >> you really need to address this. >> let's hear from them. i'm not sure how this will be solved. >> i don't either. >> i appreciate your willingness and desire to keep good relationships with your neighbors. as